[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151007161445.GN3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:14:45 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/18] rcu: Use single-stage IPI algorithm
for RCU expedited grace period
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:49:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:29:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > @@ -167,42 +307,18 @@ static void rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(void)
> >
> > > - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> >
> > This again reminds me that we should move rcu_note_context_switch()
> > under the IRQ disable section the scheduler already has or remove the
> > IRQ disable from rcu_note_context_switch().
>
> Ah, this is the unlikely path where we actually need to do work. The
> normal fast paths no longer require IRQs disabled, you already fixed
> that last time, good!
But why not make the less-likely paths a bit cheaper while we are at it? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists